Long-term followup of patients after redo bladder neck reconstruction for bladder exstrophy complex.

摘要

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine whether redo bladder neck reconstruction is effective in achieving continence after a failed bladder neck reconstruction procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the hospital records of patients with bladder exstrophy who had undergone redo bladder neck reconstruction. There were 30 patients in the study, including 20 boys and 10 girls. Mean patient age at redo bladder neck reconstruction was 9.3 years (range 3.2 to 15.5). The patients were divided into 3 groups on the basis of the preoperative pattern of incontinence--incomplete wetters, complete wetters and those on continuous suprapubic drainage. Of the patients 15 already had undergone bladder augmentation, 12 had undergone a Mitrofanoff procedure and 12 had been treated with bulking agents injected in the bladder neck in an attempt to achieve continence. Four patients had undergone more than 1 bladder neck procedure. The patients were investigated with a combination of noninvasive urodynamics, cystoscopy, cystogram and ultrasound. All patients underwent Mitchell's modification of Young-Dees-Leadbetter bladder neck reconstruction. Additional procedures performed included augmentation cystoplasty and Mitrofanoff formation. RESULTS: Mean followup was 6.9 years (range 1.2 to 15.5). Postoperatively 28 patients were using clean intermittent catheterization to empty the bladder (5 per urethra, 23 via Mitrofanoff). Two patients remained on continuous suprapubic catheter drainage. A total of 18 patients (60%) were dry postoperatively (80% of girls and 50% of boys). Among dry patients only 3 were performing clean intermittent catheterization per urethra and 15 via a Mitrofanoff channel. No patient was able to void per urethra without the need for clean intermittent catheterization. The 2 patients on continuous suprapubic catheter drainage continued to remain so. At night only 50% of the patients were dry (5 on free drainage, 4 on clean intermittent catheterization, 6 not on any drainage). Those patients who did not respond satisfactorily to redo bladder neck reconstruction underwent subsequent additional procedures, which included injection of bulking agents (3 patients), insertion of an artificial urinary sphincter (1), Mitrofanoff formation (2) and bladder augmentation plus Mitrofanoff channel (1). Postoperative complications included difficulty with clean intermittent catheterization (8 patients), perivesical leak (1), recurrent epididymo-orchitis (1), upper urinary tract dilatation (2) and incisional hernia (1). Bladder neck closure was being considered in 5 patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our experience redo bladder neck reconstruction cannot achieve continence with volitional voiding per urethra. Although redo bladder neck reconstruction can render a significant number of patients dry, it is only effective if performed in conjunction with augmentation. Failure of the initial bladder neck reconstruction may be a reflection of a bladder that is of inadequate capacity and/or compliance. Therefore, bladder augmentation should be considered in all patients requiring redo bladder neck reconstruction. Bladder neck closure may be a better alternative to redo bladder neck reconstruction.